cik
stringclasses
1 value
date
stringlengths
8
8
form
stringclasses
4 values
sentenceCount
int64
0
2.33k
sentence
stringlengths
2
5.25k
filename
stringlengths
40
40
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
551
Plaintiff filed this purported shareholder derivative action against the Company and each of its then current executive officers and members of its Board of Directors on May 19, 2005 in Santa Clara County Superior Court asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, material misstatements and omissions and violations o...
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
552
The complaint alleged that the Company’s March 14, 2005, proxy statement was false and misleading for failure to disclose certain information relating to the Apple Computer, Inc.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
553
Performance Bonus Plan, which was approved by shareholders at the annual meeting held on April 21, 2005.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
554
Plaintiff, who ostensibly brought suit on the Company’s behalf, made no demand on the Board of Directors and alleged that such demand was excused.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
555
The complaint sought injunctive and other relief for purported injury to the Company.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
556
On July 27, 2005, plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that, in addition to the purported derivative claims, adoption of the bonus plan and distribution of the proxy statement describing that plan also inflicted injury on her directly as an individual shareholder.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
557
On January 10, 2006, the Court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the amended complaint, with leave to amend.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
558
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on February 7, 2006, and the Company filed a demurrer.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
559
After a hearing on June 13, 2006, the Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to the non-director officers and with leave to amend as to the directors.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
560
On July 24, 2006, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, which purported to bring claims derivatively as well as directly on behalf of a class of common stockholders who have been or will be harmed by virtue of the allegedly misleading proxy statement.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
561
In addition to reasserting prior causes of action, the third amended complaint included a claim that the Company violated the terms of the plan, and a claim for waste related to restricted stock unit grants to certain officers in 2003 and 2004 and an option grant to the Company’s CEO in January 2000.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
562
The Company filed a demurrer to the third amended complaint.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
563
On January 30, 2007, the Court sustained the Company’s demurrer with leave to amend.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
564
On May 8, 2007, plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
565
The Company filed a demurrer to the fourth amended complaint, which the Court sustained, without leave to amend, on October 12, 2007.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
566
On October 25, 2007, the Court entered a final judgment in favor of defendant and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
567
On November 26, 2007, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
568
Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
569
This action alleges that the Company’s iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
570
The Birdsong action was initially filed on January 30, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana asserting Louisiana causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
571
A similar action (Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.) was filed on January 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting California causes of action on behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before January 31, 2006.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
572
The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the Patterson action was dismissed.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
573
An amended complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
574
After the Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 3, 2006, plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second amended complaint on January 16, 2007.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
575
That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent misrepresentation on behal...
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
576
On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the California law-based claims, which was heard on June 4, 2007.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
577
On December 14, 2007, the Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion, with leave to amend the complaint.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
578
Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on January 11, 2008.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
579
On February 15, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
580
On June 16, 2008, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
581
A similar complaint, Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc., was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on February 1, 2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
582
At the request of plaintiffs’ counsel, the Court has postponed class certification proceedings in this action indefinitely.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
583
Branning et al.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
584
v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
585
Plaintiffs originally filed this purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on February 17, 2005.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
586
The initial complaint alleged violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition) and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act regarding a variety of purportedly unfair and unlawful conduct including, but not limited to, allegedly selling used computers as new and failing to honor warra...
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
587
Plaintiffs also brought causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract and violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
588
Plaintiffs requested unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
589
On May 9, 2005, the Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
590
On May 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two new named plaintiffs and three new causes of action including a claim for treble damages under the Cartwright Act (California Business & Professions Code §16700 et seq.)
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
591
and a claim for false advertising.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
592
The Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which the Court sustained in its entirety on November 10, 2005.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
593
The Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend and they filed an amended complaint on December 29, 2005.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
594
Plaintiffs’ amended complaint added three plaintiffs and alleged many of the same factual claims as the previous complaints, such as alleged selling of used equipment as new, alleged failure to honor warranties and service contracts for the consumer plaintiffs, and alleged fraud related to the opening of the Apple reta...
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
595
Plaintiffs continued to assert causes of action for unfair competition (§17200), violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of the Cartwright Act, and alleged new causes of action for fraud, conversion, and breach of the implied covenant of good fait...
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
596
The Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on January 31, 2006, which the Court sustained on March 3, 2006 on sixteen of seventeen causes of action.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
597
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding one new plaintiff.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
598
The Company filed a demurrer, which was granted in part on September 9, 2006.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
599
Plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint on September 21, 2006.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
600
On October 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
601
On November 30, 2007, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court denied.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
602
Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on March 19, 2008 and a Corrected Fifth Amended Complaint on April 1, 2008.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
603
The Company filed an answer to the Corrected Fifth Amended Complaint on April 18, 2008.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
604
The Court has scheduled the class certification hearing on the purported consumer class for October 17, 2008.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
605
The Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings for an order dismissing plaintiffs’ fraud claim based upon the statute of limitations, which was granted by the Court on June 24, 2008, with leave to amend.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
606
Gordon v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
607
Plaintiff filed this purported class action on August 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, on behalf of a purported nationwide class of consumers who purchased 65W Power Adapters for iBooks and Powerbooks between November 2002 and the present.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
608
The complaint alleges various problems with the 65W Adapter, including fraying, sparking, and premature failure.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
609
Plaintiffs allege violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and breach of warranties.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
610
The complaint seeks damages and equitable relief.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
611
The Company filed an answer on October 20, 2006 denying the material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
612
The Company has reached a settlement of this matter and the parties have received preliminary court approval for the settlement.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
613
The parties await final court approval for the settlement.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
614
Settlement of this matter will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition or operating results.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
615
Harvey v. Apple Inc.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
616
Plaintiff filed this action on August 6, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement by the Company of U.S. Patent No.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
617
6,753,671 entitled “Recharger for use with a portable electronic device and which includes a proximally located light emitting device” and U.S. Patent No.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
618
6,762,584 entitled “Recharger for use with a portable electronic device and which includes a connector terminus for communicating with rechargeable batteries contained within the device.” The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
619
The Company filed an answer on October 12, 2007 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
620
The Company also asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
621
The Markman hearing is set for October 28, 2009, and trial is scheduled for April 5, 2010.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
622
On April 7, 2008, plaintiff filed an amended complaint further alleging infringement of the reissue patent of U.S. Patent No.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
623
6,753,671.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
624
On April 28, 2008, the Company filed an answer denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
625
The Company also asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
626
Honeywell International, Inc., et al.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
627
v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
628
Plaintiffs Honeywell International, Inc. and Honeywell Intellectual Properties, Inc. filed this action on October 6, 2004 in the United States District Court in Delaware alleging infringement by the Company and other defendants of U.S. Patent 5,280,371 entitled “Directional Diffuser for a Liquid Crystal Display.” Plain...
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
629
The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
630
The Company has tendered the case to several liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
631
On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
632
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
633
The Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
634
On April 2, 2008, the Court lifted the stay for the purpose of determining whether the liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers used by the Company and certain other defendants are licensed under the ‘371 patent.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
635
In re Apple Computer, Inc.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
636
Derivative Litigation (formerly Karant v. Jobs, et al.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
637
and Related Actions) (Federal Action) On June 30, 2006, a putative derivative action captioned Karant v. Jobs, et.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
638
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
639
A number of related actions were filed in the subsequent weeks and have been consolidated into a single action captioned In re Apple Computer, Inc.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
640
Derivative Litigation, Master File No.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
641
C-06-04128-JF before the Hon.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
642
Jeremy Fogel.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
643
The actions were filed after the Company’s announcement on June 29, 2006 that an internal investigation had discovered irregularities related to the issuance of certain stock option grants made between 1997 and 2001, that a special committee of the Company’s outside directors had retained independent counsel to perform...
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
644
The action purports to assert claims on behalf of the Company against several current and former executive officers and members of the Board of Directors alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain defendants’ profits, failing to properly account for and take tax deductions for those grants,...
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
645
The Company is named as a nominal defendant.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
646
The consolidated complaint alleges various causes of action under federal and California law, including claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the California Corporations Code, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, rescission, constructive fraud and waste of corporate assets, as well as c...
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
647
Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement, restitution and imposition of a constructive trust.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
648
A Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint was filed on December 18, 2006, and a First Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint was filed on March 6, 2007.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
649
On June 12, 2007, the Company’s Board of Directors approved a resolution appointing a Special Litigation Committee to make all decisions relating to options litigation.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080723
10-Q
650
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 20, 2007, which was heard on September 7, 2007.
0001193125-08-156421/full-submission.txt